The ultimate contradiction.

I feel you are letting your bias against christianity colour your understanding. To be clear, I don't agree with Christianity as it exists today, but
that doesn't mean that I find them wrong at every turn, whether they actually are or not.

First of all, I don't believe in the existence of the Biblical god, period. That includes the god of the Jews, the Christians and of Islam. I don't
believe that the God of Abraham represents an omniscient and omnipresent being, let alone an intelligent entity that supposedly created the
universe.

dichotomy

a division or contrast between two things that are or are represented as being opposed or entirely different.

A loving father that send his children to hell is a dichotomy.

An omniscient and omnipresent being that is angered or surprised is a dichotomy.

You said:

God-given free will as well as an omniscient God (in this context mostly talking about most branches of the Abrahamic religions), as far as humans go,
God does not interfere.

And then, you qualified your statement:

A restriction of choices or the insertion of consequences, or even the (voluntarily chosen) path of following something other than what one may wish
is not the same as the removal of the agency to make a choice (or make none at all).

God interfered from the "get-go"!

To the woman he said,

“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.”

“Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat food from it
all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return.”
20 Adam[c] named his wife Eve,[d] because she would become the mother of all the living.

21 The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us,
knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord
God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side[e]
of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

Or, how about this example of "GOD" interfering with mankind's agency of "free will".

5 But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. 6 The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language
they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will
not understand each other.”

8 So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9 That is why it was called Babel[c]—because there
the Lord confused the language of the whole world. From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth.

Let's not forget how God impregnated the Virgin Mary, ignoring her free will. And of course, there's the most famous interference of all, The Great
Flood.

Who said he was the author? My entire point is that he is not, because of free will. In this context, all of humanity, with their actions and choices,
wrote the book.

Well, that's not the Biblical God.

"God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned." -- 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12

"For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old, ordained to this condemnation." -- Jude

"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate.... Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also
justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified." -- Romans 8:29-30

originally posted by: windword
First of all, I don't believe in the existence of the Biblical god, period. That includes the god of the Jews, the Christians and of Islam. I
don't believe that the God of Abraham represents an omniscient and omnipresent being, let alone an intelligent entity that supposedly created
the universe.

*Babloyi shrugs
That shouldn't stop you from being able to discuss tenets of their faith within the framework of their beliefs.

originally posted by: windword
An omniscient and omnipresent being that is angered or surprised is a dichotomy.

Surprised, maybe, but not angered.

originally posted by: windword
And then, you qualified your statement:

A restriction of choices or the insertion of consequences, or even the (voluntarily chosen) path of following something other than what one may wish
is not the same as the removal of the agency to make a choice (or make none at all).

You quoted what you say I "qualified" my statement with (I kinda assumed that was a standard understanding of free will, otherwise every single
interaction we have with any person at all could be considered removal of free will), but then quoted stuff from the Bible that that was just exactly
that.

originally posted by: windword
"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate.... Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also
justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified." -- Romans 8:29-30

Anyhow, you could've just quoted that from the start. So the Bible goes for the predestination view, rather than free will (unless someone would
argue that only specific people are predestined). Good to know.

I still say (in fact, that was basically all I was saying from the start, in this thread, actual biblical connotations were far less interesting to
me), that if one were to look at it as an exercise of logic, that foreknowledge of events is not the same as control over those events, or an
automatic negation of free will.

*Babloyi shrugs
That shouldn't stop you from being able to discuss tenets of their faith within the framework of their beliefs.

I thought that's what I was doing.

Surprised, maybe, but not angered.

What's the difference? They're both emotional reactions.

Anyhow, you could've just quoted that from the start. So the Bible goes for the predestination view, rather than free will (unless someone would
argue that only specific people are predestined). Good to know.

Sorry. I didn't mean to lead anyone down a "path". I didn't bring up predestination because in those scriptures, it's Paul waxing philosophic.
I wanted to to address the stories that were actually attributed to God's supposed actions.

Sodom and Gomorrah may have actually been destroyed. But whether or not it was destroyed because of God's wrath is merely the biblical narrative
that defines a meddling God. It's the story that defines the biblical God's character. He's meddlesome. He does interfere. I don't,
personally, believe that kind of a being is what "GOD" is.

I still say (in fact, that was basically all I was saying from the start, in this thread, actual biblical connotations were far less interesting to
me), that if one were to look at it as an exercise of logic, that foreknowledge of events is not the same as control over those events, or an
automatic negation of free will.

I think that's true, generally, but not logical when addressing an omniscient and omnipresent being who supposedly created the universe and us and
who also judges and condemns us for making unacceptable choices.

You quoted what you say I "qualified" my statement with (I kinda assumed that was a standard understanding of free will, otherwise every single
interaction we have with any person at all could be considered removal of free will), but then quoted stuff from the Bible that that was just exactly
that.

Not every, but certainly there are many interaction that DO remove the free will of an individual. Being arrested and hand cuffed by a police officer
equal the removal of free will. Being enslaved, jailed, kidnapped, raped or mugged usurps one's free will.

What if God decided one day that he did not like being omnipotent and omniscient, and thought it would be a good idea to break himself up into tiny
little pieces, each piece not knowing the other? Little tiny slices of God holed up in these flesh sacks, too small and unknowing to understand that
they are all part of a whole.

Then the tiny God slices begin to ask questions like, where is this God everyone's talking about? Why would God let all this bad stuff happen? In all
their bewilderment, the tiny God slices begin to become confused and scared, separate and alone. They only notice the differences between all of the
vessels and their ideas and desires.

Every human being is an expression of the totality of God. You cannot accept the existence of God without completely accepting the existence of bad
stuff. People turn away from God because of the bad stuff, untimely deaths of loved ones, unfortunate turns of events, human and civil rights
violations, injustice... And in doing so turn away from themselves, and therefore from God.

As far as I can tell, we don't need God, because God is there whether we acknowledge God or not. We need each other, and when we have that, we'll
find God.

a reply to: windword
See, I don't see it like that. In all those situations, while there may be severe consequences put in place for some of them, I still have control of
all my choices, and my free will. I could escape, kick my captors, yell and scream, etc. I might be killed for my troubles, but consequence is not
part of what makes free will. I see "free will" as a mental thing or an abstract concept more than a physical thing.

A robot, for example, has no free will. It has a specific set of instructions, and must always follow them and do nothing else. Whether handcuffed, or
jailed or kidnapped, it would not just only do what it is programmed, it won't even consider other choices.

If one believes in predestination- i.e. all our actions have already been set according to some "program" (either through a deity or through the
idea that cause and effect of all matter and particles in the universe can only lead to one endpoint outcome)-then that would mean there is no free
will.
Mere handcuffs do not negate free will.

A robot, for example, has no free will. It has a specific set of instructions, and must always follow them and do nothing else. Whether handcuffed, or
jailed or kidnapped, it would not just only do what it is programmed, it won't even consider other choices.

But, we are created by a set of instructions and our survival depends on following these instruction, like a robot. Our heart beats, our lungs
breath, babies suck or die.

I still have control of all my choices, and my free will.

Yes and no. Curiosity killed the cat.

I could escape, kick my captors, yell and scream, etc. I might be killed for my troubles, but consequence is not part of what makes free
will.

Is it free will, or is it physical reactionary impulse; the will to live, fight or flight?

I see "free will" as a mental thing or an abstract concept more than a physical thing.......................
Mere handcuffs do not negate free will.

I DO think that handcuffs and physical restraints do remove free will, but they may not break the "spirit" of it. Physical, violent rape is not a
"choice" of free will that the victim needs to accept. It is a violation of ones free will, period.

Whether or not the biblical God removes ones ability to freely express their free will through physical restraints, like with Jonah, or HE enters the
individual's mind to alter ones free will, like with the Pharaoh, the biblical God can in no way be seen as "hands off" and supportive of free
will, in my opinion.

[I]Mon1k3r[/I] What if God decided one day that he did not like being omnipotent and omniscient, and thought it would be a good idea to break
himself up into tiny little pieces, each piece not knowing the other? Little tiny slices of God holed up in these flesh sacks, too small and unknowing
to understand that they are all part of a whole.

What if you are correct (as in that is what exactly happened). Tiny Gods yes, as fleshy meat sacks; very small and not given any "HEADS-UP" here as
to what is happening YOU CHILDREN why or what you were incarnated as.

[I]Mon1k3r[/I] Then the tiny God slices begin to ask questions like, where is this God everyone's talking about? Why would God let all this
bad stuff happen? In all their bewilderment, the tiny God slices begin to become confused and scared, separate and alone. They only notice the
differences between all of the vessels and their ideas and desires

ITS OWN Children abandoned by God Aspect PARENT..NO Never happened. Latchkey children are the norm (what; those abandoned). Who is IN CHARGE HERE?
Demi-Gods that bred with the human; allowed and prospered by WAR TIMES? AGAIN WHOS IN CHARGE HERE, (seems like a free will for all) Chaos RULES and
human free will is dominating.

[I]Mon1k3r[/I] Every human being is an expression of the totality of God. You cannot accept the existence of God without completely accepting
the existence of bad stuff. People turn away from God because of the bad stuff, untimely deaths of loved ones, unfortunate turns of events, human and
civil rights violations, injustice... And in doing so turn away from themselves, and therefore from God.

Yup we are IT and it loves individual expression as you DEFINE IT. It is a selfish being in that it created us to explore its own being (your its
children and alternately its shadow hand puppets).

[I]Mon1k3r[/I] far as I can tell, we don't need God, because God is there whether we acknowledge God or not. We need each other, and when we
have that, we'll find God. Much ado about nothing.

"God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned." -- 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12

"For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old, ordained to this condemnation." -- Jude

Jude and 2 Thessalonians, I
would agree with Bart Ehrman in his book, Forged, are in fact early forgeries made out to be supposedly written by actual Apostles.

"For whom
he did foreknow, he also did predestinate.... Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and
whom he justified, them he also glorified." -- Romans 8:29-30

That just means that Jesus came at a certain time and the people at that time
had a special opportunity.
There is nothing in the passage indicating that anyone was compelled.

"God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned." -- 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12

"For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old, ordained to this condemnation." -- Jude

Jude and 2 Thessalonians, I
would agree with Bart Ehrman in his book, Forged, are in fact early forgeries made out to be supposedly written by actual Apostles.

"For whom
he did foreknow, he also did predestinate.... Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and
whom he justified, them he also glorified." -- Romans 8:29-30

That just means that Jesus came at a certain time and the people at that time
had a special opportunity.
There is nothing in the passage indicating that anyone was compelled.
If so special a time JESUS WOULD/COULD HAVE SPENT SOME TIME WRITING in Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic his experience as an ESSENE: HIS OWN EPISTLES
explaining the TRUTH regarding life everlasting; the 4th/5th and 6th dimensions; (and in so doing quelled many problems with his PERCIEVED OPAQUE
miniscule ministry (thank you Paul ) 300 years later YOUR weird Greek orthodox catholic CHURCH you created. The
Essenes knew that we were of an extraterrestrial creation.

Essene's are a fictional group that was made up
for propaganda purposes.
Jews were hated for good reason in Alexandria so they countered it by making up these ideal people who were Jews, but were somehow always "just over
there, if you look really hard, you can find them but we can't tell you exactly where".
The idea being to have this one thing that Jews could point to that exonerates them as a people (always playing the lawyer).

That was something else before I was saying on another
thread.
This is something different, now.
Before I was expressing the likelihood that people like Josephus was obfuscating a bit making a cover story so that the zealots could pass as not
being so easily identified, since he claims to have been some sort of zealot leader before being arrested by the Romans.
Since making those earlier remarks, I did some reading in some academic papers on the Essenes, and am agreeing with some scholarly type conclusions,
that the Essenes were a sort of ancient form of urban legend, started for the reason I cited in my last post.

I did some reading in some academic papers on the Essenes, and am agreeing with some scholarly type conclusions, that the Essenes were a sort of
ancient form of urban legend, started for the reason I cited in my last post.

Are any of those scholarly papers available on line? I'd love to read about this (new to me) theory.

The idea is that it is
otherwise difficult to find web pages that I have been on because I go directly from one to another where it drops pages from my browsing history.
Anyway, I find it useful to be registered with sites like Academia and jstor, for more solid, non sensationalistic, info.

Essene's are a fictional group that was made up
for propaganda purposes.
Jews were hated for good reason in Alexandria so they countered it by making up these ideal people who were Jews, but were somehow always "just over
there, if you look really hard, you can find them but we can't tell you exactly where".
The idea being to have this one thing that Jews could point to that exonerates them as a people (always playing the lawyer).

Where do you get this; that the Essenes were a fiction? There were three groups within the 'Hebrew' doctrine at during the time of Jesus; those that
were political/wealthy merchants that fed the Roman Armies (the Saducce), and those that were the political/ priest overlords (the Pharasee; give me
your lambs to sacrifice as I have a butcher shop right below the alter in the basement), and those that studied (HIDDEN IN QUMRAN) the esoteric
metaphyical sciences; including that of the Egyptian mystery schools. Who was inventing propaganda? Qumran was raided in 72AD by the Romans; that is
also a NON fiction as its well documented. Jews hated in Alexandria? 250 years later? You are not sounding sensible; Jesus was schooled in Egypt (his
formative years until the age of 5). Who made up the ideal race of Jews? I thought Abraham had two sons and one was the father of Judaism the other
Islam. Brothers like Enlil and Enki hated each other? History repeats.

Essene's are a fictional group that was made up for propaganda purposes.

I've seen you assert this before.
What group do you think that John the Baptist sprung from? What Jewish group, other than the Essene, promoted baptism? Who wrote the Dead Sea
Scrolls? Who followed the rules outlined in the "Community Rule" scroll?
Who administered the "Vow of the Nazirite"?
Who were the Jewish therapeutics that lived at Mount Carmel and attended "Elijah's Cave"?
Why did Philo, Pliny and Josephus write about the Essene? Were they all in cahoots in their fictitious illustrations of this supposed reparative
group?

Yes; the Essenes wrote the 'dead sea scrolls'. The Essenes were the first commune in which men, women and children were EQUAL beings, (children were
schooled right along with the adults if they so desired); bathing facilities were not segregated, everyone shared duties; this was a very advanced
group of people. John was an Essene as were Jesus, Mary and Joseph. The Essenes possessed superior true Qabala (Egyptian) knowledge and is why they
were persecuted.

Who was inventing propaganda? Qumran was raided in 72AD by the Romans; that is also a NON
fiction as its well documented.

Philo of Alexandria.
The "documentation" was written by Josephus, years later, from Rome, where he had been since Titus returned there after the Jewish War that he ended
at least one phase of, with the overthrow of Jerusalem.
He had access to a lot of sources (some that no longer exist) to write his histories, one of which would of course been Philo.
So what Josephus said about the Essenes was not from personal knowledge (most likely) but was just repeating what had already been said about them.

Recent analysis of the Qumran site has led to the determination that it had been vacated decades earlier than the Roman conquest of Jerusalem, during
the reign of Herod the Great.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.